my own Soundboard

[Greg Newell]

Me too Stephen Me Too!!

Greg

Farrell wrote:

> ? I won't go into
> ? thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is
> interested -
> ? but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard.
>
> You bet I am interested! That is just what I am looking for: a good
> professional method that does not require a big machine $ outlay. I have
> planed a bit - but usually on the edge of boards. Although I do plane my
> soundboard shims. I really have no experience hand planing a large flat
> surface to thickness. I would love to hear of your technique. It sounds like
> it would be right up the alley for someone like me. Thanks.
>
> Terry Farrell
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Birkett" ?birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca?
> To: ?pianotech@ptg.org?
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: my own Soundboard
>
> ? Terry wrote:
> ? ? Am I on to a simple workable solution here? Or am I just treading water
> =
> ? ? before I sink?
> ? ? How do others in the "one or two soundboards a year" shop do it? Thanks.
> ?
> ? With all this talk about monster macho sanding machinges, Terry, I'd step
> back a moment
> ? and think about things. Why do you (or any one else for that matter) think
> a better
> ? soundboard will result? Is it because you think a better surface will be
> obtained? or
> ? is it just quicker? or is it just easier to sand a board and requires less
> practical
> ? skill? or is the "perfectly even thickness" from a machine desirable? or
> is it because
> ? you think a better board will result from following semi-industrial
> practice as closely
> ? as possible? I would question any of that reasoning.
> ?
> ? You will always get a cleaner surface by hand planing rather than sanding,
> no matter
> ? what kind of sander you use - b i g machine or hand method. Planing cuts
> fibres,
> ? severing them, while sanding compresses them. A "fuzzines" level is
> unavoidable from
> ? sanding. PLaning leaves a surface that shimmers, but only if no sanding
> has been used
> ? on it previously.
> ?
> ? Planing technique is not difficult to acquire, and there is little $
> outlay involved.
> ? I can understand a production shop, perhaps, justifying the use of a big
> machine for
> ? boards, but that rationalization of the machine purchase does not apply to
> even a
> ? semi-production shop, let alone an individual making a few boards per year
> in a small
> ? shop. I can plane a board in the time it would take you to truck yours to
> a shop with a
> ? big sander - it doesn't take long with the right tools, and a well-tuned
> plane.
> ?
> ? Once you have your panel glued up you surface one side, generally the one
> which will be
> ? visible. After you've gone over to flatten with a smoothing plane you need
> to clean the
> ? surface. For softwoods, including Sitka, avoid scrapers which generally
> only work on
> ? hardwoods. Get a good block plane (Record will do and inexpensive), fit it
> with a thick
> ? Hock blade, set the mouth _real_ tight and you can clean pretty much any
> surface.
> ? (European fir, which I'm using for the current soundboard, is stringier
> than anything
> ? Sitka has to offer, and the block plane works fine).
> ?
> ? Now you flip it and tackle the thicknessing. Given the design is an
> evenly-thick board
> ? with tapered edge, you obviously have to aim first for even-thickness. Now
> you have to
> ? keep some perspective on this - there is "even" and "even", but there is
> nothing magic
> ? about achieving the same thickness to a fraction of a mm. It's not a
> metal-working shop
> ? project where things are measured to thous. And for that matter
> (soundboard thread
> ? notwithstanding) this evenness spec is an arbitrary factor that has more
> basis in human
> ? perception than in anyhting to do with the way soundboard actually work.
> If a machine
> ? gives you something "perfectly even" automatically then so-be-it, but if a
> different
> ? working practice naturally gives a more relazed tolerance then that too is
> fine. No need
> ? to fight to get machine-like tolerances when it doesn't matter anyway. I
> won't go into
> ? thicknessing technique for a big panel by hand planing, unless someone is
> interested -
> ? but it doesn't really take all that long to do and it's not hard.
> ?
> ? And on one other point it's interesting that Sitka is now considered _the_
> wood for
> ? soundboards, although most makers of historical instruments tend to avoid
> it like the
> ? plague. And the use of Sitka really came to be simply because the
> convenient Eastern
> ? spruce stocks were used up, so they looked to the lefthand side for
> lumber, although
> ? Eastern spruce stocks have recovered since the early 20th century now to
> some extent.
> ? There are arbitary "quality" issues previously discussed here (easthetic,
> not acoustic)
> ? - remember my orange crate stock soundboard?  Playing devil's advocate,
> though, I would
> ? suggest that you can pretty much make a decent board out of _any_ wood by
> modifying
> ? design parameters to accomodate...but that is treading into the territory
> of the "big
> ? soundboard thread"....
> ?
> ? Stephen
> ?
> ? Stephen Birkett Fortepianos
> ? Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos
> ? 464 Winchester Drive
> ? Waterloo, Ontario
> ? Canada N2T 1K5
> ? tel: 519-885-2228
> ? mailto: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca
> ?

--
Greg Newell
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net